Hrm, some of the supreme bulldikes I've met I could not imagine NOT being a lesbian. Not only did they look and sound like a man, everything about them was mannish. Too much testosterone, I reckon.

I believe it IS a genetic disorder, and one that is curable.

Fags and Dikes scream that it's not a choice, they're born with it. If they're born with it, it's obviously curable.

I agree. That's not to say that a homosexual's perverse and deviant lifestyle should be praised and allowed to be pushed on society. These people need to be cured of their disorder and until that happens they need to stay in the closet and leave normal society alone!

I weighed in on this before, deleted it, and now I am weighing in again.

There seems to be several things going on here. On the one hand, people have a legitimate disgust with the gay agenda, the gay lifestyle, etc. I am in total agreement with racial comrades on this matter.

Where I disagree is the idea that there is something "unnatural," "deviant," or "evil" about homosexual behavior. So far as I can tell what the Zionist media calls "homophobia" (not what I would call it, but can't think of a better term off the top of my head) is SEMITIC in origin. Here's a hint- if you're getting your opinion about homosexuality from a thousands year old Jew myth, you do NOT have a European view of homosexuality.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from the "gay rights movement" which claims among other things that homosexuality is inborn, unchangeable, and somehow associated with effeminacy in men. Try telling that to Ernst Roehm (for those of you unaware, he founded the SA and was one of the prime forces behind the German National Revolution before being stabbed in the back by Hitler and the conservative wing of the party) or the Theban Band of 300 (Greek patriots who refused to bow to the Pan-Hellenic forces of Philip II). Throughout European history homosexuality seems to have largely been viewed as a behavior (like, for example, playing baseball) rather than as an identity (such as nationality) as it is portrayed today in the Zionist media.

Further, there seem to be a number of arguments stigmatizing those who engage in homosexual behavior because they cannot have children. This is problematic on two fronts. First of all, in classical antiquity it was not uncommon for a man to have a wife for procreation and a male lover for companionship. Indeed, in Roman society homosexuality between men was widely practiced even while reproduction was seen as the duty of every patriotic citizen. Secondly, it assumes that those who choose not to have children for other reasons or are medically incapable of reproducing are "useless" to the movement- as if the only contribution a race patriot can make is breeding.

Again, so far as I can tell the stigma against homosexual behavior per se (as opposed to a stigma against the passive role in homosexual sex associated with femininity- of course NEVER a good quality in men) is Semitic and not European in origin. I maintain that the identification of homosexual behavior with feminine traits is largely a creation of the "gay rights movement" and the Zionist media. I also challenge anyone here to claim that they have made a greater contribution to the white race than Ernst Roehm (the only NSDAP member allowed to address Hitler as "Adolf"), Edmund Heines, or Karl Ernst- all completely open about their homosexual lives while members of the NSDAP.

Also, if your response to this is to accuse me of homosexuality I urge you to grow up. Last I checked the purpose of SF was to have intelligent discussion about topics of interest to white nationalists, not engage in base slander, name-calling, and junior high school locker room tomfoolery. If you've got an argument to make, make it. If you've got information to bring to my attention, bring it. But don't waste my time with BS.

Perhaps, assuming the homos didn't have offspring. However, as late as the early 20th century, it seems to have been common for them to marry and have many children anyway (e.g. Thomas Mann). (Let's try to save the word 'gay' from homos!)

I agree. Gay means happy, not homosexual. Homosexuality is an abomination. Any species purpose is to procreate and to sustain the species. A species can't be sustained if the males and females of the species attempt to procreate with the same gender. I don't think it's genetic, I think it's a mental defect, like pedophilia and schizophrenia.

I weighed in on this before, deleted it, and now I am weighing in again.

There seems to be several things going on here. On the one hand, people have a legitimate disgust with the gay agenda, the gay lifestyle, etc. I am in total agreement with racial comrades on this matter.

Where I disagree is the idea that there is something "unnatural," "deviant," or "evil" about homosexual behavior. So far as I can tell what the Zionist media calls "homophobia" (not what I would call it, but can't think of a better term off the top of my head) is SEMITIC in origin. Here's a hint- if you're getting your opinion about homosexuality from a thousands year old Jew myth, you do NOT have a European view of homosexuality.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from the "gay rights movement" which claims among other things that homosexuality is inborn, unchangeable, and somehow associated with effeminacy in men. Try telling that to Ernst Roehm (for those of you unaware, he founded the SA and was one of the prime forces behind the German National Revolution before being stabbed in the back by Hitler and the conservative wing of the party) or the Theban Band of 300 (Greek patriots who refused to bow to the Pan-Hellenic forces of Philip II). Throughout European history homosexuality seems to have largely been viewed as a behavior (like, for example, playing baseball) rather than as an identity (such as nationality) as it is portrayed today in the Zionist media.

Further, there seem to be a number of arguments stigmatizing those who engage in homosexual behavior because they cannot have children. This is problematic on two fronts. First of all, in classical antiquity it was not uncommon for a man to have a wife for procreation and a male lover for companionship. Indeed, in Roman society homosexuality between men was widely practiced even while reproduction was seen as the duty of every patriotic citizen. Secondly, it assumes that those who choose not to have children for other reasons or are medically incapable of reproducing are "useless" to the movement- as if the only contribution a race patriot can make is breeding.

Again, so far as I can tell the stigma against homosexual behavior per se (as opposed to a stigma against the passive role in homosexual sex associated with femininity- of course NEVER a good quality in men) is Semitic and not European in origin. I maintain that the identification of homosexual behavior with feminine traits is largely a creation of the "gay rights movement" and the Zionist media. I also challenge anyone here to claim that they have made a greater contribution to the white race than Ernst Roehm (the only NSDAP member allowed to address Hitler as "Adolf"), Edmund Heines, or Karl Ernst- all completely open about their homosexual lives while members of the NSDAP.

Also, if your response to this is to accuse me of homosexuality I urge you to grow up. Last I checked the purpose of SF was to have intelligent discussion about topics of interest to white nationalists, not engage in base slander, name-calling, and junior high school locker room tomfoolery. If you've got an argument to make, make it. If you've got information to bring to my attention, bring it. But don't waste my time with BS.

As long as homosexuals do not impose their degenerate lifestyles on mainstream society and are at least somewhat discrete about their lifestyles and likewise know that their sexual orientation is a fluke of nature then I have no problem with them. Homosexuality is a disorder that exists in all species and has always been here. It's only recently that it's been accepted by the majority of society as being normal and healthy. Having gay pride marches where children and the elderly might be is completely disrespectful and highly immoral. If they want to flaunt their debauchery then they should do so in gay bars or in the areas of town that are already known to be the "shady" part of town. There's a time and place for everything. Everything is out of whack nowadays thanks to the Jews.

Teutonic; your post was well written and I don't have the time right now to write an equally well-written reply, so I will reply to any incorrect information as briefly as I can.

Quote:

Where I disagree is the idea that there is something "unnatural," "deviant," or "evil" about homosexual behavior.

The practice is damaging to society as a whole. There has never been any great white civilization in history that practiced homosexuality. They were sure to shun the practice. If a behaviour causes one to die, on average, around 40 (as the statistics show) then do you not think something may be unnatural about it?

Quote:

So far as I can tell what the Zionist media calls "homophobia" (not what I would call it, but can't think of a better term off the top of my head) is SEMITIC in origin. Here's a hint- if you're getting your opinion about homosexuality from a thousands year old Jew myth, you do NOT have a European view of homosexuality.

The Christian religion, which the white race has followed for the past two thousand years, is not a "jew myth." Secondly, I could find you hundreds of other documents from white societies that shun homosexuality. It has always been a cause of shame.

Quote:

Theban Band of 300 (Greek patriots who refused to bow to the Pan-Hellenic forces of Philip II).

Quote:

First of all, in classical antiquity it was not uncommon for a man to have a wife for procreation and a male lover for companionship.

The practice is damaging to society as a whole. There has never been any great white civilization in history that practiced homosexuality. They were sure to shun the practice. If a behaviour causes one to die, on average, around 40 (as the statistics show) then do you not think something may be unnatural about it?

I think that this may stem from a different definition of "natural." Clearly, if homosexuality is practiced not only in every human society, but also the behaviors of animal both closest to humans (bonobos) and the animal kingdom at large, you are hard pressed to make a case that it is "unnatural." Deviant, destructive, unhealthy- make the case. But "unnatural" seems a misnomer.

I'd also like to know what the source for your statistic is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lionel Strongfort

The Christian religion, which the white race has followed for the past two thousand years, is not a "jew myth." Secondly, I could find you hundreds of other documents from white societies that shun homosexuality. It has always been a cause of shame.

Throughout classical antiquity it was the standard reading of the Iliad that Achilles and Patrocolus were involved in a homosexual relationship. Spartan society included institutional pederasty. On viewing the corpses of the Sacred Band of Thebes King Philip remarked famously "Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly."

I am NOT suggesting as the "gay pride movement" does that homosexuality was the normative practice in classical antiquity. What I am suggesting is that the strong taboo against it seems to be Semitic in origin.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the Hebrew nature of Christianity, but I find your assertion that it has been practiced by the white race for "the past two thousand years" highly suspect. Me and Oswald Spengler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lionel Strongfort

The practice, again, was not condoned by the Romans. It was shunned to the highest degree. Rome had the strictest laws against it.

Which I guess is why Nero married his negro slave in public? With Rome it depends on which time period you're talking about. Further, it seems to me ludicrous to suggest that there were ever any laws in ancient Rome forbidding a master from doing anything he likes with his slave.

Finally, the video that you have posted is interesting, but I find it hard to take too seriously. If the facts purported by the video have any validity I am sure that they can be found in a well-researched book. I invite you to direct me to such a book.

As far as I know, a gene that determines orientation hasn't been found yet, but I believe true homosexuals were born that way. Being attracted to the opposite or same sex isn't something that's taught; it just is. Forcing a gay person to act straight and get married isn't fair for anyone, not least of all those they marry. If it is in the genes then it would just be passed on. Homosexuality could also come about because of environmental factors while still in the womb but more studies still need to be done to really get to the bottom of it. Or maybe it originally came about through evolution when there were too many people in an area compared to the resources to keep them fed.

Those who weren't born that way, but instead chose to be gay, usually do so because of traumatic events that put them off towards the opposite sex. It's understandable that it could happen. I see the bi college girl thing as more of a phase. They think it's cool

I think that this may stem from a different definition of "natural." Clearly, if homosexuality is practiced not only in every human society, but also the behaviors of animal both closest to humans (bonobos) and the animal kingdom at large, you are hard pressed to make a case that it is "unnatural." Deviant, destructive, unhealthy- make the case. But "unnatural" seems a misnomer.

Now, does it? We're talking 500 species out of one million that have been documented to practice the behaviour, and out of those few five hundred cases the behaviour is known to be caused by other factors. You cite the bonobo, for example, which uses homosexual behaviour to settle conflict.

Throughout classical antiquity it was the standard reading of the Iliad that Achilles and Patrocolus were involved in a homosexual relationship. Spartan society included institutional pederasty. On viewing the corpses of the Sacred Band of Thebes King Philip remarked famously "Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly."

Achilles and Patroclaus were not lovers; it was agape, platonic love, not a relationship of buggery. If you were to find one ancient source that supported the modern-day homosexual agenda that it was a gay relationship, you would have a case. As it stands, there is no evidence. The idea that the Spartans or the Sacred Band practiced homosexuality is also a dubious claim, though regardless we're talking a far different case to the modern-day homosexual, an immature, weak and effeminate coward. There is a difference between the men who practice homosexual behaviour out of nessecity (such as in prisons or, in your view, the Sacred Band to hold the unit together) to those who engage in the behaviour in our modern era.

Quote:

I am NOT suggesting as the "gay pride movement" does that homosexuality was the normative practice in classical antiquity. What I am suggesting is that the strong taboo against it seems to be Semitic in origin.

So you think that the ancient Celtic tribes welcomed homosexuals? Perhaps the Germanic tribes or the Norse were gay-friendly? The Aryans in India, boy lovers and pederasts? I would be hard pressed to build a case that condemnation of the homosexual is "semitic in origin." The jews, after all, were the founders of the modern day gay rights movement.

Quote:

We'll have to agree to disagree on the Hebrew nature of Christianity, but I find your assertion that it has been practiced by the white race for "the past two thousand years" highly suspect. Me and Oswald Spengler.

It depends on what you mean by "Hebrew." Your view is that the Jewish race were those who wrote the scriptures.

Secondly; are you actually disagreeing with the fact that Christianity has been the religion of every white man for the past two millenia?

Quote:

Which I guess is why Nero married his negro slave in public? With Rome it depends on which time period you're talking about. Further, it seems to me ludicrous to suggest that there were ever any laws in ancient Rome forbidding a master from doing anything he likes with his slave.

I believe only one writer mentioned Nero marrying a castrated boy, though regardless, Nero was mad and an emperor who could do what he liked. The idea of homosexuals freely walking the streets in Rome is a joke. Perhaps a few perverted masters took advantage of their slaves, though this is similar to the way men take advantage of the weak in prisons.